NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
____________
No. 11-3771
____________
SHADRACH WINSTEAD,
Appellant
v.
CURTIS JACKSON, a/k/a FIFTY CENT; INTERSCOPE
RECORDS, INC.; UNIVERSAL MUSIC GROUP; G-UNIT
RECORDS; SHADY RECORDS; AFTERMATH
ENTERTAINMENT; JOHN DOES 1-10, (individuals whose
identity is as of yet unknown); ABC CORPORATIONS 1-100,
(heretofore unidentified corporations partnerships, and/or
business entities; POLYDOR, LTD
__________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civil No. 10-cv-05783)
District Judge: Honorable Stanley R. Chesler
__________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
January 2, 2013
Before: RENDELL, FISHER and GARTH, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: January 11, 2013)
____________
OPINION OF THE COURT
____________

PER CURIAM
Appellant Shadrach Winstead appeals an order of the District Court dismissing his
amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. For the
following reasons, we will affirm.
In this copyright case, the parties respective works at issue include Winsteads
book, The Preachers Son But the Streets Turned Me into a Gangster, and defendantappellee Curtis Jacksons Before I Self-Destruct album/CD, featuring songs and lyrics
written by Jackson; and his companion film of the same name, which Jackson wrote,
starred in, and directed.1 Winstead is the sole owner of the copyright for his book. In
2007 and 2008, Winstead dictated his book, and gave the audiotapes to an individual to
transcribe. Prior to publication of the book, this individual apparently either gave the
book to Jackson, or gave the book to individuals who gave the book to Jackson.
On December 17, 2010, Winstead filed his original complaint in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey, claiming that Jacksons album/CD and film
derived their contents from, and infringed the copyright of, his book. In addition to suing
Jackson, Interscope Records, Inc., and several other record companies, Winstead also
sued Polydor, Ltd., a British corporation. Winstead alleged claims of copyright
infringement and state law claims of unfair competition, conversion, misappropriation,
and unjust enrichment. Winstead later filed an amended complaint, in which he
explained that his book, in graphic fashion, describes the notoriety, power, and the
money that [he] enjoyed as a gangster. Winstead specifically asserted that his book
1

Jackson is perhaps better known as 50 Cent.

2

included these short phrases: Get the dope, cut this dope, lets keep it popping, and I
said the strong takes from the weak, but the smart takes from everybody. In a scene
from Jacksons film a song playing in the background includes these lyrics: Get the
dope, cut the dope, get the dope. Lets get it popping. The strong sit down, but the weak
work for me. In addition, the protagonist in Winsteads book states: I put that work
in, and Shadrach your name is ringing, ringing loud. In the song, Gangstas Delight,
Jackson raps Thats why my name is ringing bells in the street. I put that work in.
Yeah, yeah. I put that work in. Yeah, yeah. The amended complaint notes twenty-five
other examples of alleged copying.2
Jackson and the record companies moved to dismiss the amended complaint
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(6), arguing that the copyright infringement claim
failed because Winsteads book and Jacksons album/CD and film are not substantially
similar as a matter of law, and that Winsteads state law claims are preempted by the
Copyright Act because they are premised on the same underlying facts. The defendants
further argued that Winstead had misquoted many of his alleged copying examples,
rearranged Jacksons lyrics in an attempt to create similarity where none existed, and
even cited language that did not exist in any form in Jacksons works. It was also argued
that Polydor should be dismissed on the ground that it lacks sufficient contacts with New
Jersey, see Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(2).

Because we write primarily for the parties, and they are familiar with the specific
allegations of copying, we will not discuss them in detail except as is necessary to our
discussion.
3

In a brief in opposition to the motion to dismiss, Winstead repeated the allegations

in the amended complaint, argued their merits, and also argued that his allegations were
sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. Winsteads response to the defendants charge
that he had misquoted or deceptively rearranged many of his examples of alleged copying
was to assert that such an argument was premature and belonged in a motion for
summary judgment.
The District Court was provided with the book, the album/CD, the song lyrics, the
film, and the films screenplay, and the court held argument on the motion. The District
Court advised Winstead that his case could indeed be dismissed on a Rule 12(b)(6)
motion, and Winstead was given an opportunity to respond specifically to the defendants
charge of misquoting and deceptive rearrangement.
In an order entered on September 21, 2011, the District Court dismissed
Winsteads amended complaint against all defendants, including Polydor, for failure to
state a claim, concluding that Jackson and the other defendants did not improperly copy
protected aspects of Winsteads book. See Winstead v. Jackson, 2011 WL 4407450
(D.N.J. September 20, 2011). The District Court reasoned that, although the book and
film shared similar characters, themes, and setting, the story of a protagonist who has a
difficult upbringing and turns to a life of violence and street crime has long been a part of
the public domain. No copyright violation occurs where works depict gang life in innercity New Jersey, characters spending time in jail, obtaining money through criminal
activity, shoot-outs, murder, and the loss of a parent. See id. at *3.

The District Court further reasoned that a viewing of the book and film revealed
that they were entirely dissimilar with respect to plot, mood, and sequence of events, in
that the book detailed Winsteads rise above a life of violence to achieve redemption,
whereas Jacksons film portrayed his protagonists descent into moral apathy and
eventual death. Id. Further, the court reasoned that [a]ny common themes of a young
male whose tumultuous upbringing leads him to resort to a life of crime and violence in
order to gain power and money are scnes faire, or standard to any coming of age story
of a young man from an inner-city. Id. In addressing Winsteads contention that direct
phrases from his book appear in both Jacksons album/CD and film, the District Court
reasoned that commonly used words and short phrases are excluded from copyright
protection. The language that Winstead referred to putting the work in, ones name
ringing in the streets, and get the dope, cut the dope, amounted to nothing more than
generic words and phrases that were common in hip hop music. See id. The average
layman, who would be observing these phrases in the context of an overall story or song,
would not regard these minute snippets as unique and protectable. Id. at *3. Last, the
District Court concluded that Winsteads state law claims were preempted by federal
copyright law.
Winstead appeals pro se. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291. The
matter is fully briefed, and we have been provided with copies of both Winsteads book
and Jacksons album/CD and film. Winstead argues in his original pro se brief that the
District Court applied an incorrect standard in dismissing his Rule 12(b)(6) motion, and
that the District Court improperly concluded that there was no actionable copying.
5

Winstead does not challenge the dismissal of his state law claims. Under Federal Rule of
Appellate Procedure 28(a) and Third Circuit Local Appellate Rule 28.1(a), an appellant is
required to set forth the issues raised on appeal and to present arguments in support of
those issues in his opening brief. Because Winstead did not comply with these
requirements, he has waived his state law claims. See Kost v. Kozakiewicz, 1 F.3d 176,
182 (3d Cir. 1993).
Our review of an order granting a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is plenary. See Sands v.
McCormick, 502 F.3d 263, 267 (3d Cir. 2007). It was proper here for the District Court
to dispose of Winsteads copyright infringement action on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to
dismiss. See generally In re: Rockefeller Center Properties, Inc. Securities Litig., 184
F.3d 280, 287 (3d Cir. 1999) (on motion to dismiss, District Court may consider certain
narrowly defined types of material without converting motion to dismiss to summary
judgment motion, including items that are integral to or explicitly relied upon in the
complaint); Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc., 998 F.2d 1192,
1196 (3d Cir. 1993) (District Court may consider an undisputedly authentic document
that a defendant attaches as an exhibit to a motion to dismiss if the plaintiffs claims are
based on the document.). Although the question of substantial similarity is one of fact,
the District Court may consider, in deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the documents
attached to the complaint as exhibits, including the works themselves. See Peter F. Gaito
Architecture, LLC v. Simone Development Corp., 602 F.3d 57, 64 (2d Cir. 2010).
When a court is called upon to consider whether the works are substantially similar, no
discovery or fact-finding is typically necessary, because what is required is only a visual
6

comparison of the works. Id. (quoting Folio Impressions, Inc. v. Byer Cal., 937 F.2d
759, 766 (2d Cir. 1991)). Thus, where the works in question have been submitted by the
parties and are authentic, it is proper for the District Court to consider the similarity
between those works in connection with a motion to dismiss.
In Winsteads case, the District Court had before it all that was necessary in order
to make the required determination under Rule 12(b)(6) concerning substantial similarity.
[W]hen ruling on a defendants motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6), a judge must accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in
the complaint. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007)). We agree with the District Courts
determination that there was no actionable copying of Winsteads book by the
defendants. Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner . . .
is an infringer. 17 U.S.C. 501(a). To establish a claim of copyright infringement, the
plaintiff must establish ownership of a valid copyright, and unauthorized copying of
protectable elements of the plaintiffs work. See Dun & Bradstreet Software Servs. v.
Grace Consulting, Inc., 307 F.3d 197, 206 (3d Cir. 2002).
Here, it is not disputed that Winstead is the owner of the copyrighted property, and
we note that Jackson conceded the issue of access for purposes of the motion to dismiss.
However, not all copying is copyright infringement, see Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural
Telephone Service. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991), so even if actual copying is proven,
the court must decide, by comparing the allegedly infringing work with the original work,
whether the copying was unlawful. See Kay Berry, Inc. v. Taylor Gifts, Inc., 421 F.3d
7

199, 208 (3d Cir. 2005). Copying may be proved inferentially by showing that the
allegedly infringing work is substantially similar to the copyrighted work. See Dam
Things From Denmark, a/k/a Troll Co. ApS v. Russ Berrie & Co., Inc., 290 F.3d 548,
561 (3d Cir. 2002). A court compares the allegedly infringing work with the original
work, and considers whether a lay-observer would believe that the copying was of
protectable aspects of the copyrighted work. Id. at 562. The inquiry involves
distinguishing between the authors expression and the idea or theme that he or she seeks
to convey or explore, because the former is protected and the latter is not. Kay Berry,
421 F.3d at 208 (citing Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99, 104-05 (1879)). The court must
determine whether the allegedly infringing work is similar because it appropriates the
unique expressions of the original work, or merely because it contains elements that
would be expected when two works express the same idea or explore the same theme.
Id.
We agree with the District Court that a lay observer would not believe that
Jacksons album/CD and film copied protectable aspects of Winsteads book. Jacksons
album/CD is comprised of 16 individual songs, which explore drug-dealing, guns and
money, vengeance, and other similar clichs of hip hop gangsterism. Jacksons fictional
film is the story of a young man who turns to violence when his mother is killed in a
drive-by shooting. The young man takes revenge by killing the man who killed his
mother, and then gets rich by becoming an enforcer for a powerful criminal. He takes
up with a woman who eventually betrays him, and is shot to death by her boyfriend, who
has just been released from prison. The movie ends with his younger brother vowing to
8

seek vengeance. Winsteads book purports to be autobiographical and tells the story of a
young man whose beloved father was a Bishop in the church. The protagonist was angry
as a child because his stepmother abused him, but he found acceptance and self-esteem
on the streets of Newark because he was physically powerful. He earned money robbing
and beating people, went to jail, returned to crime upon his release, and then made even
more money. The protagonist discusses his time at Rahway State Prison in great and
compelling detail. The story ends when the protagonist learns that his father has passed
away; he conveys his belief that this tragedy has led to his redemption, and he hopes that
others might learn from his mistakes.
There was a failure to state an actionable claim for copyright infringement here
because, although Winsteads book and Jacksons works share similar themes and
setting, the story of an angry and wronged protagonist who turns to a life of violence and
crime has long been a part of the public domain. Winstead argues in his original opening
brief that a protagonist asking for Gods help when his father dies, cutting drugs with
mixing agents to maximize profits, and complaining about relatives who are addicts and
steal the product, are protectable, but these things are not unique. To the extent that
Jacksons works contain these elements, they are to be expected when two works express
the same idea about the streets or explore the same theme. Kay Berry, 421 F.3d at 208.
Winstead argues that not every protagonist whose story concerns guns, drugs, and
violence in an urban setting winds up in prison or loses a parent, see Appellants Brief, at
16, but this argument only serves to illustrate an important difference between his book

and Jacksons film. Jacksons protagonist never spends any time in prison, whereas
Winsteads protagonist devotes a considerable part of his story to his incarcerations.
In addition, Winsteads book and Jacksons works are different with respect to
character, plot, mood, and sequence of events. Winsteads protagonist embarks on a life
of crime at a very young age, but is redeemed by the death of his beloved father.
Jacksons protagonist turns to crime when he is much older and only after his mother is
murdered. He winds up dead at a young age, unredeemed. Winsteads book is hopeful;
Jacksons film is characterized, as the District Court explained, by moral apathy. It is
true that both works involve the loss of a parent and the protagonists recognition of the
parents importance in his life, but nowhere does Jackson appropriate anything unique
about Winsteads expression of this generic topic.
Winstead contends that direct phrases from his book appear in Jacksons film. In
his reply brief he emphasizes these phrases: Yo, where is my money at, I would never
have done no shit like that to you, my father, my strength was gone, he was
everything to me, and I did not know what to do, but, like the phrases putting the
work in, get the dope, cut the dope, lets keep it popping, and the strong take from
the weak but the smart take from everybody, they are either common in general or
common with respect to hip hop culture, and do not enjoy copyright protection. The
average person reading or listening to these phrases in the context of an overall story or
song would not regard them as unique and protectable. See Dam Things From Denmark,
290 F.3d at 562. Moreover, words and short phrases do not enjoy copyright protection.
See 37 C.F.R. 202.1(a); accord Southco, Inc. v. Kanebridge Corp., 390 F.3d 276, 28510

87 (3d Cir. 2004). The similarity between Winsteads book and the lyrics to Jacksons
songs on the album/CD is even more tenuous. Stretching the dope and bloodshot red
eyes are common phrases that do not enjoy copyright protection. A side-by-side
comparison of Winsteads book and the lyrics from Jacksons album/CD do not support a
claim of copyright infringement.
For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the order of the District Court dismissing
the amended complaint as to all defendants. Appellants motion to lodge exhibits is
denied. A party may not add exhibits which were not part of the record in the
proceedings below in order to support his positions on appeal. See, e.g., Union Pacific
Railroad Co. v. Greentree Transp. Trucking Co., 293 F.3d 120, 126 (3d Cir. 2002).3

For similar reasons, we have also disregarded materials and arguments in Winsteads
opening and reply brief that were not a part of the materials and arguments before the
District Court.
11